TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Cat and Dog Fur

Mike O'Brien: On 17 July last year I made a written statement to the House, Official Report cols 79–80WS, on the issue of cat and dog fur. I asked interested parties to try within six months to produce hard evidence of the extent of imports of domestic cat and dog fur into the UK. I said that if such evidence could be produced, I would in principle, be prepared to support a ban on the import of these furs. If, after six months hard evidence had not been produced, the Government would not legislate until evidence is forthcoming.
	The six month deadline has ended. The Government understands the ethical concerns about the alleged import of cat and dog fur and is therefore reporting back to both Houses on progress made over the last six months.
	Our priority on this issue has always been, and remains, the need to establish the facts about the extent of this alleged trade and to act in a measured way. The Government has maintained regular contact with interested parties over the last six months. However, over this time, we have received only one alleged sample of domestic dog fur and no samples of domestic cat fur.
	We have asked scientific experts at the former Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC Limited) to determine the reliability of mass spectrometry as a possible means of accurately distinguishing the furs of domestic cat and dogs from that of other animal species. Such a test is necessary to determine whether domestic cat and dog fur is being imported into the UK, to permit effective enforcement of the Trade Descriptions Act and that of any future legislation governing the import of these furs.
	Known samples of fur from both domestic and wild species within the cat and dog families, fur from other animals and the alleged sample of domestic dog fur were sent for testing last year. Some of these samples were also tested in an altered state to replicate the effects of textile processing. Thirteen samples were tested in total, all of them were tested twice, further to the discovery that technical problems might have affected the initial results.
	LGC Limited has confirmed that four of the thirteen samples were correctly identified in the initial testing and six out of thirteen were correctly identified in the subsequent testing. Less than half of the samples were therefore correctly identified, and probability ratios demonstrate that there is a high chance that these samples could in fact have come from another species. Given these results, LGC Limited has recommended that mass spectrometry is not yet currently sufficiently reliable as a means of identifying domestic cat and dog fur from the fur of other animal species.
	I have placed copies of LGC Limited's report in the Library of the House.
	Whilst these results are very disappointing, there is some evidence that the reliability of mass spectrometry may improve as the database of known samples is built up and the software improves.
	In my previous written statement, I made clear that, whilst the Government is prepared to take practical and proportionate action to address this matter, any action would be most effective if taken at EU level. There is stronger evidence that domestic cat and dog fur has been used in products found in some other EU countries. For this reason, we have been working hard over the last six months to raise the profile of this issue at EU level. In November last year, I publicly supported calls by the European Parliament for an EU ban on trade in cat and dog fur, whilst making clear that it was also essential to have in place a reliable scientific test to ensure effective enforcement. The UK has also, in the context of various EU meetings, either raised the issue of cat and dog fur or supported calls by other Member States for the European Commission to consider this issue further. We continue to be in regular contact with officials from other countries and from the Commission in order to share information and our approaches to this emotive issue.
	In July I undertook to give support to a ban on the import of domestic cat and dog fur if clear evidence could be produced of the extent of this problem in the UK. This has not been achievable over the last six months, and as I made clear last summer, I cannot therefore support an import ban at this point in time. However, this Government will continue to encourage interested parties to provide evidence of the extent of this problem. I have also asked LGC Limited to submit new known samples of fur for testing in order to further analyse the reliability of mass spectrometry and we will continue to push for greater EU involvement on this issue.
	I can assure you that this Government remains fully committed to establishing the facts about this issue and to taking proportionate and practical action. I therefore further undertake to report back to Parliament on progress made at the latest within twelve months and earlier if there are any substantive developments.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

Chris Pond: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the benefit fraud inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Bury metropolitan borough council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
	Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.
	The BFI inspected Bury metropolitan borough council against the performance standards for housing benefits. The report finds that the council is not at standard for any of the seven functional areas of the performance standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments. However, the council is performing well in a significant number of elements of the standards.
	The report finds that historically the council's benefit service has been given low priority within the council and performance overall has been mixed. While counter-fraud performance has been sound, performance in the processing of claims has been weak and there are significant arrears of work.
	The report finds that since the comprehensive performance assessment result, announced in December 2002, the council has made progress across many areas of the performance standards.
	The major challenge for the council is to significantly improve its benefits processing performance. This will be helped by a more systematic approach to planning, backed up by project disciplines and gathering management information.
	In 2001–02, Bury metropolitan borough council administered some £31.3 million in housing benefits, about 15.5 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.
	The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

TREASURY

Double Taxation Convention(United Kingdom and France)

Dawn Primarolo: A new comprehensive double taxation convention with France (which will replace the existing agreement) was signed on 28 January 2004. After signature, both texts were deposited in the Library of the House and made available on the Inland Revenue's website. The text of the convention will be scheduled to a draft order in council and laid for consideration by the House in due course.